who_said_it

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states the challenge concept but does not disclose how the tool behaves: whether it presents a quote, expects an answer, evaluates the response, or returns a result. This lack of interaction details is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that effectively communicates the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, but the description does not explain what the challenge returns or how the agent should interact with it. The single parameter is well-documented in the schema, but the overall interaction flow and expected outputs are missing, leaving the description incomplete for agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter (difficulty), with an enum and default. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a quote attribution challenge, specifying the action (guess which Star Trek character said it). This distinguishes it from search and reference tools among siblings. However, it could be more explicit about the game format, so it doesn't earn a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage: when a quote attribution challenge is desired. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of other game tools like trivia_quiz or away_team_builder, and no stated exclusions. This is borderline between implied and missing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.